Voters think Republican climate dissenters 'crazy', bipartisan poll finds

[Timshel]

I am not so sure this poll is an accurate reflection of the true opinion on Obama's plan (what is it?) but it shows that denialism is just another one of many dead ends for Republicans.

http://www.lcv.org/issues/polling/recent-polling-on-youth.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/25/us-politics-climate-change-scepticism

Voters think Republican climate dissenters 'crazy', bipartisan poll finds
Results show risks that deniers in Congress pose to GOP as majority of younger constituents back Obama's carbon plans

Republicans in Congress who reject the science behind climate change could soon be reduced to political fossils, with new polling on Wednesday suggesting three-quarters of young voters find such views "ignorant, out of touch or crazy".


The bipartisan poll conducted for the League of Conservation Voters found solid 80% support among under-35 voters for Barack Obama's climate change plan – and majority support even among those who oppose the president.


On the flip side the poll found three-quarters of voters, or 73%, would oppose members of Congress who stood in the way of Obama's climate action plan.


The findings could prove awkward for Republicans in Congress who have adopted climate contrarianism as a defining feature.


Some 55% of Republicans in the House of Representatives and 65% of those in the Senate reject the science behind climate change or oppose action on climate change, according to an analysis by the Centre for American Progress.


The house speaker, John Boehner, dismissed Obama's plan to reduce carbon emissions as "absolutely crazy". If the poll is right that would hurt Boehner even among members of his own party, with the poll finding 52% of young Republicans less inclined to support a candidate who opposed Obama on climate change.

The implications were even more harsh for those Republicans who block Obama on climate action and dispute the entire body of science behind climate change. "For voters under 35, denying climate change signals a much broader failure of values and leadership," the polling memo said. Many young voters would write such candidates off completely, with 37% describing climate change deniers as "ignorant", 29% as "out of touch" and 7% simply as "crazy".

 

[cawacko]

You're just a tool of the right Baxter.

 

[cawacko]

Why are groaning me Rana?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So this bipartisan poll was done just on those 35 and under? I wonder why the limit? Oh yeah, the younger people are typically more gullible and emotional.

Why bother looking at the actual data? Lets just toss out a good old knee jerk reaction!!!

 

[Bai Lan]

http://endthelie.com/books-and-reading-material/haarp-exposed/#axzz2apZxiLNC

Former US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen was actually warning us in 1997 that the United States government has developed and is now actively using a weapon that is capable of causing mass destruction by triggering earthquakes, weather modification (inducing heavy rainfall that causes floods or no rainfall which causes droughts), volcanic eruptions and the like. Cohen was warning us about the existence of HAARP. HAARP was developed by the Bill Clinton / Al Gore administration as a United States weapon of mass destruction. HAARP was ordered built by Bill Clinton and Al Gore to beam electromagnetic waves into the Earth’s inosphere to trigger geophysical events such as earthquakes, climate modification (change), volcanic eruptions and the like.
Congressional Hearing records during the Clinton administration and HAARP patents disclose that HAARP beaming heats the inosphere. As we all know heat causes things to expand. We also know that heat rises. As HAARP heats one part of the ionosphere the ionosphere expands and gets pushed higher. This HAARP ionosphere heating can cause a controlled diverting or altering of the natural path of jet streams. What does manipulating the jet stream have to do with manipulating the weather? The jet stream is literally a fast flowing (at jet speed) stream – of water vapor. The jet stream transports atmospheric rivers of water vapor around the World.
These jet streams of vapor carry an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to the average flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River. When these atmospheric rivers make landfall, they often release this water vapor in the form of rain or snow. By manipulating the jet stream (pushing or pulling it off course) HAARP can modify the weather. HAARP can alter the path an existing high pressure weather system (clear skies) or low pressure weather system (storm clouds) anywhere on Earth just by heating the ionsphere over the target region. HAARP can also create a column-shaped hole with a diameter of 30 miles that rises a couple of hundred kilometers through the atmosphere. The lower atmosphere then moves up the column to fill in that space, and it changes pressure systems below.
The result of hot surface air being sucked up into the column to fill the HAARP created column-shaped hole is a HAARP created hurricane (if HAARP column-shaped hole is made over water) or tornado (if HAARP column-shaped hole is made over land). The April/May 2000 issue of Scientific American contains an article on the effects of altering the course of the jet stream. This slight change to the jet stream path occurred right above the HAARP facility. That little movement created a storm front 4,000 miles away in east Texas and Louisiana to move into central Florida where it triggered a couple of tornadoes.
This article gives evidence that weather modification is certainly possible with only a slight change to the jet stream.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why are groaning me Rana?

why would you actually CARE?

 

[cawacko]

why would you actually CARE?

Good point. And she probably knew I was being a smart ass because that's what Desh called Baxter.

 

[evince]

super duper has found the republican a NEW demographic to attack.

the vast youth vote.


man that republican outreach is really out of reach of reality

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I am not so sure this poll is an accurate reflection of the true opinion on Obama's plan (what is it?) but it shows that denialism is just another one of many dead ends for Republicans.

http://www.lcv.org/issues/polling/recent-polling-on-youth.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/25/us-politics-climate-change-scepticism

Voters think Republican climate dissenters 'crazy', bipartisan poll finds
Results show risks that deniers in Congress pose to GOP as majority of younger constituents back Obama's carbon plans

Republicans in Congress who reject the science behind climate change could soon be reduced to political fossils, with new polling on Wednesday suggesting three-quarters of young voters find such views "ignorant, out of touch or crazy".


The bipartisan poll conducted for the League of Conservation Voters found solid 80% support among under-35 voters for Barack Obama's climate change plan – and majority support even among those who oppose the president.


On the flip side the poll found three-quarters of voters, or 73%, would oppose members of Congress who stood in the way of Obama's climate action plan.


The findings could prove awkward for Republicans in Congress who have adopted climate contrarianism as a defining feature.


Some 55% of Republicans in the House of Representatives and 65% of those in the Senate reject the science behind climate change or oppose action on climate change, according to an analysis by the Centre for American Progress.


The house speaker, John Boehner, dismissed Obama's plan to reduce carbon emissions as "absolutely crazy". If the poll is right that would hurt Boehner even among members of his own party, with the poll finding 52% of young Republicans less inclined to support a candidate who opposed Obama on climate change.

The implications were even more harsh for those Republicans who block Obama on climate action and dispute the entire body of science behind climate change. "For voters under 35, denying climate change signals a much broader failure of values and leadership," the polling memo said. Many young voters would write such candidates off completely, with 37% describing climate change deniers as "ignorant", 29% as "out of touch" and 7% simply as "crazy".

Wow. Politically it's interesting because it's one more thing that is fast relegating the R party to a regional sect. More broadly, this is very encouraging. You know, for the future of the human race.

 

[Timshel]

So this bipartisan poll was done just on those 35 and under? I wonder why the limit? Oh yeah, the younger people are typically more gullible and emotional.

Why bother looking at the actual data? Lets just toss out a good old knee jerk reaction!!!

Because the point was to gauge the views of younger voters.

How is any of it an example of a knee jerk reaction?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Because the point was to gauge the views of younger voters.

How is any of it an example of a knee jerk reaction?

Superfreak gets very agitated about climate change. Few I've ever known go sideways faster or harder. It's an emotional issue for him. I hope you have a spit guard, or a bib, or some sort of protective gear.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Because the point was to gauge the views of younger voters.

How is any of it an example of a knee jerk reaction?

So your title was just off? You meant to say voters 35 and younger... not just Voters... fair enough

As for the knee jerk reaction... given the data consistently has been showing the computer models are off, the initial knee jerk reaction of 'we be doomed' favored by the consensus crowd was based on emotion, not facts.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Superfreak gets very agitated about climate change. Few I've ever known go sideways faster or harder. It's an emotional issue for him. I hope you have a spit guard, or a bib, or some sort of protective gear.

Put the vodka down... step away from the glass.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Because the point was to gauge the views of younger voters.

How is any of it an example of a knee jerk reaction?

well I don't know how much you can consider something a bi partisan poll when the demographic you are polling skews heavily liberal.

that said, yes, science deniers are crazy.

I think personally a lot of the religious republicans just think the rapture is coming soon, so who gives a fuck about global warming, even if it IS real?

 

[Timshel]

So your title was just off? You meant to say voters 35 and younger... not just Voters... fair enough

As for the knee jerk reaction... given the data consistently has been showing the computer models are off, the initial knee jerk reaction of 'we be doomed' favored by the consensus crowd was based on emotion, not facts.

Why do douchebags always whine about titles? Is your attention span to short to read any further?

The title was not mine and it's not off. Voters 35 and younger are voters. It could be more specific, but there is an article that gives the details.

There are no problems with the models that support the denialists. Global warming is still an issue and the knee jerk reaction is from those making a big deal about variations within the projected ranges of temperature increases.

The only knee jerk reaction here is yours and your whining about and reliance on headlines.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why do douchebags always whine about titles? Is your attention span to short to read any further?

The title was not mine and it's not off. Voters 35 and younger are voters. It could be more specific, but there is an article that gives the details.

A voters poll usually refers to all demographics, not just one subset. Titles should be more accurately reflect that. You have the ability to put what you want in the title. If you choose to keep one that is misleading, that is your option.

There are no problems with the models that support the denialists.

What models are you referring to that support the denialists? Or are you finally calling the fear mongers by their rightful names?

Global warming is still an issue and the knee jerk reaction is from those making a big deal about variations within the projected ranges of temperature increases.

You realize of course the entire premise of man made global warming is based on CO2 levels and the resulting variations in temperatures? That when the temps fall out of the range, when the predictions by the fear mongers continually fail to materialize in reality that there is concern over their data (or manipulation of such)?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/...so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/

some reading for you if you so desire

 

[Timshel]

A voters poll usually refers to all demographics, not just one subset. Titles should be more accurately reflect that. You have the ability to put what you want in the title. If you choose to keep one that is misleading, that is your option.



What models are you referring to that support the denialists? Or are you finally calling the fear mongers by their rightful names?



You realize of course the entire premise of man made global warming is based on CO2 levels and the resulting variations in temperatures? That when the temps fall out of the range, when the predictions by the fear mongers continually fail to materialize in reality that there is concern over their data (or manipulation of such)?

On the title..... Waaah! I am so sorry you had to read a couple sentences to understand the information presented. I know knee jerk morons like you prefer short soundbites.

None of the models support the denialists. I will rephrase. The variations within the models don't support the denialists.

Where are the temperatures falling out of the predicted ranges? My guess is you failed to read further than the title/headline again.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

On the title..... Waaah! I am so sorry you had to read a couple sentences to understand the information presented. I know knee jerk morons like you prefer short soundbites.

None of the models support the denialists. I will rephrase. The variations within the models don't support the denialists.

Where are the temperatures falling out of the predicted ranges? My guess is you failed to read further than the title/headline again.

Like I stated, your choice if you wish to be misleading. I am just pointing it out. No need to get your panties in a wad.

As for reading... since you failed to read...

Global Warming Theory Has Failed
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here. It was also described on Forbes here.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology​

​

 

[NOVA]

Because the point was to gauge the views of younger voters.

How is any of it an example of a knee jerk reaction?

Too bad they don't gage the brains of younger voters...you know, the idiots that think the Revolution was between Mexico and US....and the Vietnam Nam War was
fought in the 1800's.....that sign petitions to do away with the Bills of Rights, that don't know who won the Civil War...etc....